Gyroscopic Investing

barrett wrote: Thought this Wiki link might be of interest:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_by_country

While reading the wikipedia pages of World Cup players, I came upon (bad choice of words) a sex scandal involving some French footballers, e.g. Ribery (one seriously ugly dude) and an Algerian prostitute named Zahia. I found it interesting that the footballers were being questioned by the authorities because Zahia was underage at the time. Zahia herself was not charged because prostituting yourself is not a crime in France. This is not something I usually utter in the same breath as "France", but it seems logical to me.

Kshartle wrote: To any single guys who aren't interested in forming a relationship right now.....I would highly recomend finding a safe, un-coerced prostitute (they are out there )

I have some better advice.  Save yourself for the future love of your life.  Trust me, you'll be glad you did.

Desert wrote: If you have to pay for it, you're doing it wrong.

Doing what wrong?

What if you're ugly and don't want a relationship? Why should you settle for a relationship with someone that is probably not that attractive physically if that's what you don't want?

I used to wonder why prostitution is often considered more immoral--or at least more distasteful--than fornication, and is therefore prohibited by the government whereas fornication is not. A consistent government would either prohibit both (consistent morality), or prohibit neither (consistent freedom).

I think when people exchange money to do something immoral like sex outside of marriage, the perception is that the monetary exchange encourages more of the activity than would otherwise occur "for free." So a lot of people believe (wrongly, I think) that if they simply remove money from the equation by prohibiting the monetary exchange, they will be removing a lot of the stimulus and thereby greatly curtailing the activity. In reality, they just push the activity underground and create a black market for it, unwittingly making it even more lucrative (and more dangerous).

Muddled economic thinking strikes again.

In my opinion, there is a huge difference betweem "making love" and "sex".  Making love with one you love is so very much more than a "feel good" moment of pleasure; the concept of love is hard to explain if you have never experienced being in love with your spouse - there is something about the commitment component of marriage that cannot be duplicated in cohabitation or one night stands (my opinion).  Our current culture seems to have forgotten (at least in the common talk of the day) about making love.  And, on that topic, some profound words from the Beatles that apply to the thread title:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=venzPNvge18&feature=kp

... Mountaineer

Generally I happen to think that love doesn't really exist. In the human sphere it is a transactional emotion (I might have just made up that term) that is based on one person generally conforming to your idea of how they should behave...it is tit for tat.  Perhaps with a child it is different, but Im certain that if a significant others behavior were to change drastically enough for the worse, you would fall out of love with them. This then proves that there is no enduring or permanent love...it is a temporary sentiment based on a particular set of circumstances that happen to be giving you a pleasurable feeling at the moment. 

Desert wrote: In fact, why even have sex with a human ... hopefully soon there will be very life-like robots available for that purpose.  You could have sex with a beautiful robot, and skip the meth teeth and the STD's entirely.

If you can afford a robot.......you can find a lot of hookers that don't have meth teeth!

Desert do you think there's a good argument for an exchange of sex for money should be a crimminal offense?

I largely agree with doodle, and will go farther to state that I think nearly all human interactions and relationships are transactional. Even in your MT +1 example, Desert, getting MT to visibly agree with your posts without paying him off would simply involve providing him with a different thing: intellectual pleasure or warm fuzzies when he reads your posts. People make friends, take lovers, and get married because those other people provide them with good feelings, intellectual stimulation, money, opportunities, you name it. The first two are largely seen as more honorable reasons to maintain a relationship than the latter two, but let's not pretend it doesn't happen an awful lot!

A bit of a diversion here, pardon me:

When I read this thread I am saddened.  If one does not experience the love of Jesus in their lives, it surely seems to me that love of another person becomes difficult, at least that is what I gather from reading the posts of the believers vs. the non-believers.  I'm not saying you non-believers don't have a right to your view of life, or that you should not focus on transactional benefits.  I'm just saying how very, very sad it makes me to observe (from my worldview) what you are missing and you don't even realize it.  There is so much more to life that it seems you are missing.  I'm sad.

Rant over!  Back to sex for money now.

... Mountaineer

Desert wrote: Am I on a slippery slope towards anarchy?

It's more like a climb to the top of a mountain!

Desert wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

Desert wrote: Am I on a slippery slope towards anarchy?

It's more like a climb to the top of a mountain!

Maybe the lack of oxygen up there promotes anarchist thinking. 

By the way, after you and Moda finish up your morality thread, I want to have a thread on the practical issues with anarchy.  I have to admit that I see it as a very theoretical, impractical concept at this point (I mean no offense by that).  Maybe I'm missing something.  But please finish that darn morality discussion first.  I need a conclusion on that before I retire, if possible. 

I'll move the ball forward there today.

I post here almost exclusively during office hours. It makes it really difficult to be as preceise as I need to over there.

Threads like this don't require exact wording and exceptionally tight ideas because we're just throwing stuff around. I don't need to think as deeply when I write on other threads like this.

Desert wrote: It's possible that our definitions of "transactional" are very different.  Going back to the MT example (sorry MT, that we're taking your name in vain), if MT experiences intellectual pleasure when he reads my posts, and responds with a +1, I don't view that as transactional at all.  He simply likes my posts.  Now if I contact him privately, ask what he likes to see in posts, and agree to provide such posts in exchange for his +1's, then that would be transactional.  Now one could argue that there could exist less formal versions of this transaction example ... possibly even a full spectrum of examples up to and including him simply liking my posts.  But I think there is a distinction between human interactions that are transactional and those that happen in close relationships.

I think you're discussing degrees of transactionality (is that a word? Well, I like it!), rather than the presence of absence of transactionalism (ditto).

I imagine that your wife would indeed be disappointed if you turned into Walter White, as would mine. But there's a deeper question: why do our wives love us? Why do we love our wives? I would posit that it is because of how we make each other feel. When my wife fell in love with me, I was a certain person and I made her feel a certain way. The fact that she fell in love with me, and not one of my friends who was wooing her at the time, was because she was attracted to aspects of my personality that made me me and not him. This implies that if I became a different person, her love for me could fade, in the same manner as if I were a different person who she had not fallen in love with.

This, to me, is the transactional nature. She loves me because of how I make her feel, and likewise vice versa. Our love is dependent on each of us continuing to act and behave in a certain manner that promotes the feelings of love that we feel. In that manner, I think love is a lot like a plant: you have to water it to keep it healthy. But watering a plant is itself a highly transactional act: you expend resources watering the plant because you receive in exchange a plant that is pleasing to the eye or produces food. You don't do it for no reason; you do it because you want to get something back in return.

I think that would be my definition of a transactional act: something you do to get something else that you want in return. The best cases for this is where the thing that you do happens to be something that you actually want to do, but that doesn't make it not a transactional act, IMHO.

The libertarian in me says that consensual sex for money should be perfectly legal and not require socially-acceptable money laundering through gifts and expensive dinners.  Sex for money has always been a reality -- some people are just more honest and direct about it than others.  One can choose to participate or not based on their personal beliefs. 

The Christian in me says that prostitution should remain illegal as it rots the soul.  As a frequent traveler in Asia, I have met (never purchased) many prostitutes and pimps who in at least one situation literally chased me down the street offering their services.  One can say it is their choice, but the desperation tells me otherwise.  And I've talked to several depressed business travelers whose marriages were in shambles yet they were blind to how their Chinese girlfriends were part of the problem and not simply a legal economic "fix" for the hole in their relationship.  Rationalizing sex to a cash exchange has major emotional tradeoffs on both sides of the transaction that sadly many people just aren't aware of, perhaps because once it actually sounds appealing they're already in a pretty bad spot.

Desert wrote: And finally, I do recognize that there are some "friendships" and even marriages that are based on a set of sort of assumed transactions.  "You're going to be my good-lookin' trophy wife and provide me with daily wild sex, and I'm going to make lots of money and buy you a big house and not leer at the neighbor lady."  But I would go on to argue that relationships like that are the reason our divorce rate is so high.  Because none of us can hold up our end of the deal.  The hot wife gets older and fatter, and my salary doesn't keep up with the accountant's next door, etc. 

The outside pressure from family, society, and even the economy for young people to marry after any extended period of relationship is enormous. Girls in particular at a young age are taught to worship the diamond, white dress and accompanying party. I'd argue that's why our divorce rate is so high. And I'm not blaming women, just saying the overall pressure to marry just for the sake of marrying has to be a big factor.

The best thing about getting older for me has been the declining libido. In my younger days I was enslaved by my penis and jumped through hoops and all sorts of contortions in order satisfy its insatiable needs. I've now been celibate for about 6 months and actually dread the idea of having to put up with the generally nutty behavior of a female for a few moments of pleasure. In that sense, it would be so much easier to just be able to pay someone every once in awhile to deal with my pesky biological urges.

doodle wrote: The best thing about getting older for me has been the declining libido. In my younger days I was enslaved by my penis and jumped through hoops and all sorts of contortions in order satisfy its insatiable needs. I've now been celibate for about 6 months and actually dread the idea of having to put up with the generally nutty behavior of a female for a few moments of pleasure. In that sense, it would be so much easier to just be able to pay someone every once in awhile to deal with my pesky biological urges.

The train to Anarcho-Capitalandia is now boarding... Desert is already inside; you coming too?

For starters we should give these under appreciated social servants a better title than prostitute. They are like a special elite class of massage therapists that release sexual tensions from the body....that's a bit more scientific at least.

Pointedstick wrote:

doodle wrote: The best thing about getting older for me has been the declining libido. In my younger days I was enslaved by my penis and jumped through hoops and all sorts of contortions in order satisfy its insatiable needs. I've now been celibate for about 6 months and actually dread the idea of having to put up with the generally nutty behavior of a female for a few moments of pleasure. In that sense, it would be so much easier to just be able to pay someone every once in awhile to deal with my pesky biological urges.

The train to Anarcho-Capitalandia is now boarding... Desert is already inside; you coming too?

You might as well Doodle....what difference does it make anyway 

Kshartle wrote: You might as well Doodle....what difference does it make anyway 

No, that's Reub's line!

Desert wrote:

doodle wrote: The best thing about getting older for me has been the declining libido. In my younger days I was enslaved by my penis and jumped through hoops and all sorts of contortions in order satisfy its insatiable needs. I've now been celibate for about 6 months and actually dread the idea of having to put up with the generally nutty behavior of a female for a few moments of pleasure. In that sense, it would be so much easier to just be able to pay someone every once in awhile to deal with my pesky biological urges.

I'm going to go ahead and give the honesty award to doodle. 

By the way doodle, do you sometimes type things like the above with a wry smile, or are you completely serious?  I'm just curious.  I'm hoping you're finding some humor in some of your posts, because I am (I mean that as a compliment to your writing and honesty, not that I'm making light of your various predicaments). 

I'm not certain enough about anything to get reeaaallyy serious. A lot of times I just throw out ideas to stir things up. I've never been with a prostitute, but I can see how the idea of legalizing it makes a lot of sense. Sexually repressed people act kind of crazy sometimes..(I lived in the Middle East for a number of years and witnessed it first hand) and I don't see what's so bad about someone doing a job which helps another person alleviate some built up "tensions" that their biological makeup has unfortunately cursed them with. Objectively speaking a prostitute is a masseuse of the groin area. It's only because of our uptight cultural conceptions about sex that we see any difference between massaging someone's back and massaging someone's package.

All that said, I am serious that a declining libido has been a godsend for me. I go out to bars sometimes and watch with pity the desperate attempts many other men go through in order to bed a woman. They crave vagina like a crackhead who needs a fix. What an awful addiction to be afflicted with. I feel I can enjoy the company of a woman but by no means is it something that I'm willing to sacrifice blood and treasure for.

Desert wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: I think you're discussing degrees of transactionality (is that a word? Well, I like it!), rather than the presence of absence of transactionalism (ditto).

I imagine that your wife would indeed be disappointed if you turned into Walter White, as would mine. But there's a deeper question: why do our wives love us? Why do we love our wives? I would posit that it is because of how we make each other feel. When my wife fell in love with me, I was a certain person and I made her feel a certain way. The fact that she fell in love with me, and not one of my friends who was wooing her at the time, was because she was attracted to aspects of my personality that made me me and not him. This implies that if I became a different person, her love for me could fade, in the same manner as if I were a different person who she had not fallen in love with.

This, to me, is the transactional nature. She loves me because of how I make her feel, and likewise vice versa. Our love is dependent on each of us continuing to act and behave in a certain manner that promotes the feelings of love that we feel. In that manner, I think love is a lot like a plant: you have to water it to keep it healthy. But watering a plant is itself a highly transactional act: you expend resources watering the plant because you receive in exchange a plant that is pleasing to the eye or produces food. You don't do it for no reason; you do it because you want to get something back in return.

I think that would be my definition of a transactional act: something you do to get something else that you want in return. The best cases for this is where the thing that you do happens to be something that you actually want to do, but that doesn't make it not a transactional act, IMHO.

You explained that well, and I agree to a point.  But I also see a kind of love that exists outside the above description.  One that is not transactional, because the love is given with no expectation of getting a return.  And even in the repeated absence of a return, it is given again and again.  I don't think any human is fully capable of this kind of love, but it's something that I aspire to (I'm not there yet!).  I have experienced it from others on rare occasions, and it has been very inspiring.  So ironically, a love that expects nothing in return is the most inspirational love there is. 

This has been something that I have been playing around with as well....to accept people for what they are. I wouldn't call it "love" per se....more like just being okay with a person being the way they are and taking it at that. One of my good friends is a staunch republican and he and I probably disagree on most things in life but  I was the first person to show up at the hospital when he had a stroke. So it just goes to show that you can even care for people who you disagree with and annoy the hell out of you because you are able to see through all that to the core of their humanity and realize that you suffer essentially the same predicament that they do, although you might be a little further down the path in recognizing your own frailties and shortcomings.

doodle wrote:

Desert wrote:

doodle wrote: The best thing about getting older for me has been the declining libido. In my younger days I was enslaved by my penis and jumped through hoops and all sorts of contortions in order satisfy its insatiable needs. I've now been celibate for about 6 months and actually dread the idea of having to put up with the generally nutty behavior of a female for a few moments of pleasure. In that sense, it would be so much easier to just be able to pay someone every once in awhile to deal with my pesky biological urges.

I'm going to go ahead and give the honesty award to doodle. 

By the way doodle, do you sometimes type things like the above with a wry smile, or are you completely serious?  I'm just curious.  I'm hoping you're finding some humor in some of your posts, because I am (I mean that as a compliment to your writing and honesty, not that I'm making light of your various predicaments). 

I'm not certain enough about anything to get reeaaallyy serious. A lot of times I just throw out ideas to stir things up. I've never been with a prostitute, but I can see how the idea of legalizing it makes a lot of sense. Sexually repressed people act kind of crazy sometimes..(I lived in the Middle East for a number of years and witnessed it first hand) and I don't see what's so bad about someone doing a job which helps another person alleviate some built up "tensions" that their biological makeup has unfortunately cursed them with. Objectively speaking a prostitute is a masseuse of the groin area. It's only because of our uptight cultural conceptions about sex that we see any difference between massaging someone's back and massaging someone's package.

All that said, I am serious that a declining libido has been a godsend for me. I go out to bars sometimes and watch with pity the desperate attempts many other men go through in order to bed a woman. They crave vagina like a crackhead who needs a fix. What an awful addiction to be afflicted with. I feel I can enjoy the company of a woman but by no means is it something that I'm willing to sacrifice blood and treasure for.

One could argue that there are much more complex emotional/chemical changes that occur with the Package Package at the massage parlor than the  Back/Arm/Leg Package.

Not that this makes it worthy of all the "uptightness," but it certainly would make you question the long-term health of looking at sex as such a commodity if our brains are doing weird things we don't understand regarding the topic.

doodle wrote: This has been something that I have been playing around with as well....to accept people for what they are. I wouldn't call it "love" per se....more like just being okay with a person being the way they are and taking it at that. One of my good friends is a staunch republican and he and I probably disagree on most things in life but  I was the first person to show up at the hospital when he had a stroke. So it just goes to show that you can even care for people who you disagree with and annoy the hell out of you because you are able to see through all that to the core of their humanity and realize that you suffer essentially the same predicament that they do, although you might be a little further down the path in recognizing your own frailties and shortcomings.

What a wonderful post. I think you're right. If I could try to define love, I would say that you are in love with somebody when you like being around a person not because of anything they happen to do or say, but because of who they are: the core of their personality; what drives them; makes them tick, etc. My wife and I love each other in this way, but I also have a friend who I have known since age 3 and I think we have this going on as well. Even as we grew up and branched out and went in different directions (he worked at the Fed!), we still like being around one another irrespective of what the other one is interested in or going through, and can pick up right where we left off even if it's been years. We're both straight dudes, so there's no sexual attraction between us, but I think there's definitely a bond of love there.

But again, I would also say that it's still transactional: each of us passively gives the other a good feeling, without even trying to. So the transactions are effortless. It's like if you got a job making 200k a year doing your very favorite thing in the entire world: what you had to give would be something you actually liked giving, so getting back something in return only makes it even better.

At least, that's what makes a bit of sense to me.

moda0306 wrote:

doodle wrote:

Desert wrote: I'm going to go ahead and give the honesty award to doodle. 

By the way doodle, do you sometimes type things like the above with a wry smile, or are you completely serious?  I'm just curious.  I'm hoping you're finding some humor in some of your posts, because I am (I mean that as a compliment to your writing and honesty, not that I'm making light of your various predicaments). 

I'm not certain enough about anything to get reeaaallyy serious. A lot of times I just throw out ideas to stir things up. I've never been with a prostitute, but I can see how the idea of legalizing it makes a lot of sense. Sexually repressed people act kind of crazy sometimes..(I lived in the Middle East for a number of years and witnessed it first hand) and I don't see what's so bad about someone doing a job which helps another person alleviate some built up "tensions" that their biological makeup has unfortunately cursed them with. Objectively speaking a prostitute is a masseuse of the groin area. It's only because of our uptight cultural conceptions about sex that we see any difference between massaging someone's back and massaging someone's package.

All that said, I am serious that a declining libido has been a godsend for me. I go out to bars sometimes and watch with pity the desperate attempts many other men go through in order to bed a woman. They crave vagina like a crackhead who needs a fix. What an awful addiction to be afflicted with. I feel I can enjoy the company of a woman but by no means is it something that I'm willing to sacrifice blood and treasure for.

One could argue that there are much more complex emotional/chemical changes that occur with the Package Package at the massage parlor than the  Back/Arm/Leg Package.

Not that this makes it worthy of all the "uptightness," but it certainly would make you question the long-term health of looking at sex as such a commodity if our brains are doing weird things we don't understand regarding the topic.

I don't know....how about preening? Check out this asmr session, does it seem sexually charged to you? I experience asmr and I can tell you that her brain is having an orgasm during this experience. http://youtu.be/HMQidGRbN_8

It's hard for us to not get uptight about sex...even I feel uncomfortable with the topic around my parents...but that is a result of cultural conditioning. I always thought it quite strange that I can comfortably watch an action movie with my parents with hundreds of people being slaughtered, but I squirm a bit when their is a sex scene. That must be a learned reaction.

Pointedstick wrote:

doodle wrote: This has been something that I have been playing around with as well....to accept people for what they are. I wouldn't call it "love" per se....more like just being okay with a person being the way they are and taking it at that. One of my good friends is a staunch republican and he and I probably disagree on most things in life but  I was the first person to show up at the hospital when he had a stroke. So it just goes to show that you can even care for people who you disagree with and annoy the hell out of you because you are able to see through all that to the core of their humanity and realize that you suffer essentially the same predicament that they do, although you might be a little further down the path in recognizing your own frailties and shortcomings.

What a wonderful post. I think you're right. If I could try to define love, I would say that you are in love with somebody when you like being around a person not because of anything they happen to do or say, but because of who they are: the core of their personality; what drives them; makes them tick, etc. My wife and I love each other in this way, but I also have a friend who I have known since age 3 and I think we have this going on as well. Even as we grew up and branched out and went in different directions (he worked at the Fed!), we still like being around one another irrespective of what the other one is interested in or going through, and can pick up right where we left off even if it's been years. We're both straight dudes, so there's no sexual attraction between us, but I think there's definitely a bond of love there.

But again, I would also say that it's still transactional: each of us passively gives the other a good feeling, without even trying to. So the transactions are effortless. It's like if you got a job making 200k a year doing your very favorite thing in the entire world: what you had to give would be something you actually liked giving, so getting back something in return only makes it even better.

At least, that's what makes a bit of sense to me.

That idea always gets me thinking about how do I know what I like? How do I distinguish one situation as pleasurable and another as painful? Obviously physical comfort or pain are readily distinguishable, but the company of one person or another doesn't affect one in a physical way. This also can be expanded to activities...what makes golf more fun and enjoyable than washing dishes? Ultimately it is my perceptions that I project on objects that makes me love or hate them. What if I were able to turn off the judgemental side of my mind at will and just perceive the situation for what it is without comparing it to any others? That would truly be a great talent because then you would always be able to enjoy your situation or the company you were with irregardless of what it was.